United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MAUNCE B. COHILL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On August 21, 2014, the Clerk of Courts for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania received from Plaintiff Earl Stelios Andreakos a Complaint along with a Motion for Leave to Proceed informa pauperis. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis was granted on August 29, 2014 and Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on September 2, 2014.
On September 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Lenihan issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which she recommended that the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i) (ii) and (iii) because the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and seeks monetary relief against defendants who are immune from relief.
Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id . Objections to the R&R were due no later than October 3, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
We have reviewed de novo the pleadings in this case together with the September 16, 2014 Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Lenihan. Having done so, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2014, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF #4], dated September 16, 2014, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.
It is further hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii) because the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and ...